INSURANCE FRAUD HELP!!!!

devo11

hi bought a car last yr on finance over 4years total cost was over 18keuro.my friend asked me for a lend of the car 3 days later i said sure no problem he was driving on his own insurance the next day he told me he was dragged out of the car and it got robbed and burnt.

i was waiting months for his insurance company to pay up so he could pay me to pay for the finace owed on the car please bear in mind i only had the car for three days and this happened.his insurance never paid up.now i know why.

ive learnt that my friend is in court for fraud for 15500euro(cars value today) the gardai are prosecuting him.where do i stand now i was afraid to tell my bank incase they seek the rest of the outstanding finance up front now.they still think that to this day ive the car

my insurance company cant do anything cause i wasnt insured for the car at the time as i was driving my old 1 im stuck in limbo and still owe over 10k over next 2yrs on the car im the INNOCENT ONE any advice is very much appreciated as it costs me 380euro a month so far paid 19mths

deelite

Tbh I don't have a clue but would suggest you go down to FLAC (Free Legal Advice Centre) which are run by solicitors. Ring up the Citizens Information Centre and they will give you the location of your nearest FLAC branch. It's all free and afaik they sit one evening a week. Good luck.

Seth Brundle

Your learnt that you friend is up in court for fraud for the value of the car - who then is taking them to court?

corktina

you need a solicitor.

Seperate

Did you change your insurance back to your old car when your friend was driving your new one?

Gophur

devo11 wrote: »

............my friend ...............

Not really, eh?

Seth Brundle

FYI peeps www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056058538

@devo11 - please don't post the same message twice across different forums but as I'd like an answer to my question, I'll leave this thread open.

New car.....friend asks for a lend of it and you say "sure no problem", then he turns out to be a scumbag and you want us to help.:pac:
Sue your friend and get FLAC (no not torrents).

PeakOutput

kbannon wrote: »

Your learnt that you friend is up in court for fraud for the value of the car - who then is taking them to court?

im guessing that, if he was 'driving under his own insurance' then it was either under the driving of other cars part of his policy which would mean it was third party only and therefore dosnt cover theft OR he took a policy out in his own name on the car and seen as he dosnt own the car that is illegal as he has no insurable interest in the car

the other possibility is the gardai think he staged the robbery both would be criminal matters and would be prosecuted by the gardai

coylemj

PeakOutput wrote: »

... OR he took a policy out in his own name on the car and seen as he dosnt own the car that is illegal as he has no insurable interest in the car

Where does it say that it's illegal to take out insurance to drive someone else's car?

Seth Brundle

I dunno. I smell a big dirty rat!


The OP only had it for three days yet has "so far paid 19mths".
I have my current car for about two months now. Would I lend it to a friend? Would I f***!!!

I think it's in the wording.
You cant have a Policy on someone else's car, you can get cover but not a policy (implies your own car, your own policy)

coylemj

RVP 11 wrote: »

I think it's in the wording.
You cant have a Policy on someone else's car, you can get cover but not a policy (implies your own car, your own policy)

Fair enough but it's down to the insurance company, it's not 'illegal' as if they choose to take your money they could issue a third-party policy to anyone to drive a specific car they they didn't own, provided it was being driven with the owner's consent.

Idleater

What I thought was in the small print of "driving other cars" on your own policy was that said other car should be insured.

And Devo11 says

my insurance company cant do anything cause i wasnt insured for the car at the time as i was driving my old 1

.

I can see why there are some insurance companies not willing to pay out in this matter if the above assumptions on my part are correct.

fat__tony

Wow, thats some 'friend' you have OP.

I'd personally take his kneecaps if I were you.

coylemj

nereid wrote: »

What I thought was in the small print of "driving other cars" on your own policy was that said other car should be insured.

No, if your own policy covers you to drive other cars then it makes no odds if the other car has no insurance policy of it's own. What will negate coverage is if you are disqualified or you do not have the consent of the owner, the fact that there is no insurance policy in force which names that car has no effect.

Idleater

coylemj wrote: »

No, if your own policy covers you to drive other cars then it makes no odds if the other car has no insurance policy of it's own. What will negate coverage is if you are disqualified or you do not have the consent of the owner, the fact that there is no insurance policy in force which names that car has no effect.

Cool, I presume a read the t&c's for your policy will verify in either case what applies to you.

I just had a vague idea that for me (Axa) the car I'm intending to drive (3rd party) must be taxed, insured, not mine, and permission given by the owner. Will read up on it though.

All cars have to be taxed regardless, unless it's a garage policy.
As said if you have an open drive policy, that policy covers you to drive any other car as long as it's not your spouses or employers car, and the vehicle doesn't need insurance, it's you that needs it.;)
This can vary from insurer to insurer.

PeakOutput

coylemj wrote: »

Where does it say that it's illegal to take out insurance to drive someone else's car?

you cannot take an insurance policy out on anything you do not own, its the law and its called 'insurable interest'

PeakOutput

coylemj wrote: »

No, if your own policy covers you to drive other cars then it makes no odds if the other car has no insurance policy of it's own.

also incorrect coyle

it says in the terms of driving of other cars that it must have an insurance policy out on it aswell. this is to stop people buying very expensive cars and a cheap car and driving the expensive car under doc. i also think there might be a clause in there saying that if you own the other car then you cant drive it under driving of other cars

also what you said about it being up to the insurance company about weather they issue issue tp insurance to you on a car you do not own is also wrong

PeakOutput

RVP 11 wrote: »

All cars have to be taxed regardless, unless it's a garage policy.
As said if you have an open drive policy, that policy covers you to drive any other car as long as it's not your spouses or employers car, and the vehicle doesn't need insurance, it's you that needs it.;)
This can vary from insurer to insurer.

iv dealt with axa hibernian and quinn and they all had clauses in them which said the car must be covered under its own policy aswell. this is not the law but how the insurance companies cover themselves for the scenario i mentioned above

Idleater

PeakOutput wrote: »

also incorrect coyle

it says in the terms of driving of other cars that it must have an insurance policy out on it aswell. this is to stop people buying very expensive cars and a cheap car and driving the expensive car under doc. i also think there might be a clause in there saying that if you own the other car then you cant drive it under driving of other cars

also what you said about it being up to the insurance company about weather they issue issue tp insurance to you on a car you do not own is also wrong

These were my recollections on my policy t&c's but without having them in front of me I wasn't sure.

I will check it later, but if this is the case, and obviously depending on whom the OP was "insured" with then I may actually be right in the OP actually not being covered (in being allowed to lend the car) and the insurance company seeking to reclaim the costs correct too.

dunsandin

Goood Afternooon Sah, there is a pidgeoon in yar boank account and ah seemple need you Peen nomber to release eet.
.
.
.
I smell no rats, mackerell perhaps, but no rats. Is there not a fishy forum to post this in?

devo11

number 1 there is no smell of a rat i was driving my old car aswell as my new car was insured by me also 2 separate policies for both cars as my insurance wouldnt insure the two together my friend had his own insurance from his broken down car i gave him permission to drive my new finance 1 i dont care thats me i know him all me life id do it for any1 i was away in me old car as the new 1 was not taxed yet he took it out of my garden and as his insurance covered him to drive me new car he drove away in it.my insurance wont pay for the damage because i was not driving it at the time it was under his insurance he had t.p fire and theft cover as it was my car he was driving he did not have his usual comprehensive cover.im left in limbo.and have to pay for the car as it stands i do believe him and he will be found innocent then SURELY HIS INSURANCE COMPANY WILL HAVE TO PAY UP.THANKS FOR THE ADVICE.

devo11

kbannon wrote: »

FYI peeps www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056058538

@devo11 - please don't post the same message twice across different forums but as I'd like an answer to my question, I'll leave this thread open.

sorry k bannon the gardai are taking my friend to court he was shocked they have no evidence this just means ive been payn 380e every month since feb 09 and i drove the car once ha im stuck in a barrel

devo11

PeakOutput wrote: »

im guessing that, if he was 'driving under his own insurance' then it was either under the driving of other cars part of his policy which would mean it was third party only and therefore dosnt cover theft OR he took a policy out in his own name on the car and seen as he dosnt own the car that is illegal as he has no insurable interest in the car

the other possibility is the gardai think he staged the robbery both would be criminal matters and would be prosecuted by the gardai

he was driving under his own insuranc epolicy and he didnt own the car neither do i the bank does ha he had 3rd party fire and theft cover i found out

devo11

dunsandin wrote: »

Goood Afternooon Sah, there is a pidgeoon in yar boank account and ah seemple need you Peen nomber to release eet.
.
.
.
I smell no rats, mackerell perhaps, but no rats. Is there not a fishy forum to post this in?

nice1 but it is a very unusual situation that im in

djimi

devo11 wrote: »

number 1 there is no smell of a rat i was driving my old car aswell as my new car was insured by me also 2 separate policies for both cars as my insurance wouldnt insure the two together my friend had his own insurance from his broken down car i gave him permission to drive my new finance 1 i dont care thats me i know him all me life id do it for any1 i was away in me old car as the new 1 was not taxed yet he took it out of my garden and as his insurance covered him to drive me new car he drove away in it.my insurance wont pay for the damage because i was not driving it at the time it was under his insurance he had t.p fire and theft cover as it was my car he was driving he did not have his usual comprehensive cover.im left in limbo.and have to pay for the car as it stands i do believe him and he will be found innocent then SURELY HIS INSURANCE COMPANY WILL HAVE TO PAY UP.THANKS FOR THE ADVICE.

One of the stipulations of third party driving of other cars is that the car has to be taxed. If the car was not taxed at the time then your friend was not insured to drive it.

Also third party driving of other cars usually only covers accidents; in the case of fire and/or theft its your policy that usually covers it. This may be different on your friends policy but it would be unusual.

djimi

devo11 wrote: »

he was driving under his own insuranc epolicy and he didnt own the car neither do i the bank does ha he had 3rd party fire and theft cover i found out

Do you mean the policy on his own car was third part fire and theft or he had TPF&T cover to drive your car? Because if he was not fully comp on his insurance then chances are he didnt have third party driving of other cars on his policy.

Henry Ford III

djimi wrote: »

One of the stipulations of third party driving of other cars is that the car has to be taxed. If the car was not taxed at the time then your friend was not insured to drive it.

Also third party driving of other cars usually only covers accidents; in the case of fire and/or theft its your policy that usually covers it. This may be different on your friends policy but it would be unusual.

Not having valid motor tax won't invalidate insurance cover.

3rd party cover will only pay for 3rd party damages in the event of an accident.

djimi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Not having valid motor tax won't invalidate insurance cover.

Not even if its a written stipulation in the policy? On my policy it states that in order for me to drive another car with third party insurance from my own policy that car must have valid tax and NCT. As far as I know its the same on most policies. I always took to mean that if the car did not have valid tax/NCT then I wouldnt be covered?

corktina

being "covered" and getting them to pay out are two entirly different things

oldyouth

Just to clarify a few ponts being kicked about over the thread

Open Driving = This means any driver (within declared age ranges) can drive the insured's vehicle under the insured's policy. Nothing to do with other cars

Driving of other cars extension = A policyholder can drive someone else's car under their own policy for 3rd party only cover (often excludes a spouses car too)

Insurable interest = You cannot insure someone else's property, such as a car, in your own name (technical exceptions such as lease)

If your friend is being done for fraud, he must have insured the vehicle in his name. Otherwise how was he going to benefit from any insurance claim. Attempting to defraud an insurance company is a criminal offence and I think that is where this issue lies

Captain Commie

Your own insurance was not on this car, and your friend only had third party cover? sorry to say but through insurance you have no action to take. For someone to drive another persons car under their own cover then that car must be insured under the owners policy.

taking a civil case against him will be tricky too as you gave him the car, i assume that you had no contract with him as to when it was to be returned?

langdang

Lads, this is so fishy it stinks.
OP your buddy isn't related to this guy is he?
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2008/12/12/story79880.asp
Seems there was a spate of "the Bad Man burned my expensive car" in 08-09.

langdang

innovated wrote: »

For someone to drive another persons car under their own cover then that car must be insured under the owners policy.

Seriously, this has been discounted at least once in this thread alone. It depends on the insurance company. I've definitely seen policies where they will cover you third party only without any stipulation that the vehicle be taxed or insured by anyone. The only stipulation usually is that the vehicle does not belong to you or your spouse, and you have a licence for that class of vehicle. (No good to the OP, but there's no point allowing rumour to be propagated as fact)

Henry Ford III

djimi wrote: »

Not even if its a written stipulation in the policy? On my policy it states that in order for me to drive another car with third party insurance from my own policy that car must have valid tax and NCT. As far as I know its the same on most policies. I always took to mean that if the car did not have valid tax/NCT then I wouldnt be covered?

Perhaps you are right - doesn't make sense though.

Abelloid

devo11 wrote: »

he was driving under his own insuranc epolicy and he didnt own the car neither do i the bank does ha he had 3rd party fire and theft cover i found out

Wasn't it stolen and set on fire?

langdang

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Perhaps you are right - doesn't make sense though.

Don't be doubting yourself Henry! I always check the 3rd party extension part of the policy - here's the wording from my current policy

"The Company will indemnify the Insured, in the terms of and subject to the limitations of the indemnity which is
granted by Section 1 of this Policy (Liability to Third Parties), in respect of any event while personally driving a
motor car (private type) not belonging to him and not hired to him under a hire purchase agreement and not
in his custody or control by reason of the business or employment of the Insured, provided he is not entitled to
indemnity under any other Policy."

They are covering your liability to others at the minimum level required (3rd party only). That's not to say that they wouldn't chase you for payback if Car X was an unroadworthy POS or something, but your legal obligation to have third party cover while driving the roads is fulfilled.

Whether it's taxed is between me and the gardai as far as my insurered is concerned.

Obviously the likes of Quinn had to tighten things up years ago when they were being ridden by youngfellas insuring a micra in their own name then driving a Skyline registered in their granny's name...

Pdfile

this is very common place these days, more so in england with the " crash for cash " scams and such...


also OP your friend, aint a friend to do that to ya.

honestly, if it where me, i woulda got a lend of a digger, wrapped the car and re-discovered it in 30 years time.... :cool:

djimi

langdang wrote: »

Don't be doubting yourself Henry! I always check the 3rd party extension part of the policy - here's the wording from my current policy

"The Company will indemnify the Insured, in the terms of and subject to the limitations of the indemnity which is
granted by Section 1 of this Policy (Liability to Third Parties), in respect of any event while personally driving a
motor car (private type) not belonging to him and not hired to him under a hire purchase agreement and not
in his custody or control by reason of the business or employment of the Insured, provided he is not entitled to
indemnity under any other Policy."

They are covering your liability to others at the minimum level required (3rd party only). That's not to say that they wouldn't chase you for payback if Car X was an unroadworthy POS or something, but your legal obligation to have third party cover while driving the roads is fulfilled.

Whether it's taxed is between me and the gardai as far as my insurered is concerned.

Obviously the likes of Quinn had to tighten things up years ago when they were being ridden by youngfellas insuring a micra in their own name then driving a Skyline registered in their granny's name...

This is obviously another thing that varies between insurers then because I rang my broker not so long ago about this and was told (after them going to the insurance company to check) that the car in question must have valid tax and NCT in order for me to be insured on it.

ash23

You've been stung I'm afraid.

If you lend your car to someone it is also your responsibility to ensure they are adequately insured.
We had a client who was fined because she allowed a guy to test drive her car without making sure he had insurance. She didn't know the guy and he told her he was covered. He wasn't and she ended up in court alongside him.

If you wanted the car covered comprehensively then it was up to you to make sure that you named him on your policy. It would have cost you about 20 quid but you would now have been reimbursed for your car.

If he had a TPF&T policy, you should have ensured he transferred the insurance from his car to yours on a temp basis. Then he would have been driving with TPF&T cover and the insurance would have paid out.

As it stands he had Third Party cover only, while driving your car. And that was with your say so.

Expensive lesson learned.

Michael 09

There is one thing that makes no sense to me at all.

You went out and bought a new car, and still had your old car. Then your friend asks for a lend of a car because his is broken or whatever.

And you decide to give him your NEW car and you drive your OLD car??? Why did you not lend him your old car? FISHY!

devo11

no its nothing to do with that guy in paper in limerick aevery1 is going on about insurance policies.

i will say it again my friend transfered his insurance over to my new finance car for a few days so he be covered to drive it and be covered as if it wher his own car the car been taxed has nothing to do with it because its irrelevant with insurance companies and to do wit gardai only it didnt need an n.c.t. cause it was less than 4 yrs old.

sure every1 does it how many people lend there cars to there bro's sistrs friends etc we do it all the time cause they have there own insurance and you can do a TEMPORARY SUBSTITUTION OF YOUR INSURANC TO ANT CAR as long as you dont own it and you will have FULL COVER OF THAT CAR AS IF IT WAS THAT YOU ARE DRIVING YOUR OWN thats what me friend did so he was fully covered to drive it. he changed his insurance over.

months later he charged with fraud and going on trial soon im not pissed off with my friend because i believe him and he hasnt been found GUILTY. SURELY WHEN HE IS PROVEN INNOCENT HIS INSURANCE COMPANY HAS TO PAY UP RIGHT?

but im the one who is losing out and im the STUCK IN THE MIDDLE GUY FINANCIALLY.i just said id throw this issue out ther for people to help me and i say again HE WAS FULLY INSURED TO DRIVE THE CAR AS HE TEMPORARYILY CHANGED HIS POLICY OVER TO MY CAR we all have a t some stage gave some1 a lend of our cars well most of us

and its NOTHING TO DO WITH THA CRASH FOR CASH STUFF GOING ON IN ENGLAND BECAUSE THIS DIFFERS I BOUGHT THE CAR A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE CAR WAS STOLEN SO I WOULD NOT BE BETTER OF FINANCIALLY CAUSE THE BANK WOUULD BE GETTING THE MONEY WHY WOULD WE PLAN TO DO THIS THE CAR COST 15.5.K AND ALL YOUD BE GETTING IS 15.5K AND I WOULD STILL OWE BANK THROUGH INTEREST ALOT MORE DOESNT MAKE SENSE.

PLEASE IF YOU CAN BE CAREFUL LENDING YOUR CAR BECAUSE IM SURE IT HAS HAPPENED TO OTHERS BEFORE ME

ash23

devo11 wrote: »

you can do a TEMPORARY SUBSTITUTION OF YOUR INSURANC TO ANT CAR as long as you dont own it and you will have FULL COVER OF THAT CAR AS IF IT WAS THAT YOU ARE DRIVING YOUR OWN thats what me friend did so he was fully covered to drive it. he changed his insurance over.

months later he charged with fraud and going on trial soon im not pissed off with my friend because i believe him and he isnt found GUILTY YET but im the one who is losing out and im the STUCK IN THE MIDDLE GUY FINANCIALLY.i just said id throw this issue out ther for people to help me and i say again HE WAS FULLY INSURED TO DRIVE THE CAR AS HE TEMPORARYILY CHANGED HIS POLICY OVER TO MY CAR we all have a t some stage gave some1 a lend of our cars well most of us

OK so your friend had third party fire and theft on your car when he was driving it? So did the insurance co pay out or not?
And if not, why not?
And if they did, then did he pocket the money?

devo11

Michael 09 wrote: »

There is one thing that makes no sense to me at all.

You went out and bought a new car, and still had your old car. Then your friend asks for a lend of a car because his is broken or whatever.

And you decide to give him your NEW car and you drive your OLD car??? Why did you not lend him your old car? FISHY!

WHATS WITH ALL THE FISHY STUFF I WAS DRIVING MY OLD B.M.W WHICH I LOVED BUT WAS TIME FOR A CHANGE I WAS AWAY IN LIMERICK FOR THE WEEKEND IT WAS MEANT TO BE ME LAST SPIN IN IT BEFORE SELLING IT.EXPLAIN FISHY MY FRIEND SO WHAT HE MAKES A CLAIM FOR 15.5.K AND WHAT HE GIVES ME HALF THATS 7.5K BUT IVE STILL TO PAY 15.5.K PLUS INTEREST BACK TO THE BANK SO WHATS FISHY NOW

devo11

ash23 wrote: »

You've been stung I'm afraid.

If you lend your car to someone it is also your responsibility to ensure they are adequately insured.
We had a client who was fined because she allowed a guy to test drive her car without making sure he had insurance. She didn't know the guy and he told her he was covered. He wasn't and she ended up in court alongside him.

If you wanted the car covered comprehensively then it was up to you to make sure that you named him on your policy. It would have cost you about 20 quid but you would now have been reimbursed for your car.

If he had a TPF&T policy, you should have ensured he transferred the insurance from his car to yours on a temp basis. Then he would have been driving with TPF&T cover and the insurance would have paid out.

As it stands he had Third Party cover only, while driving your car. And that was with your say so.

Expensive lesson learned.

THANKS THATS THE BEST ADVICE OUT OF THEM ALL HERE EVERYTHING YOU SAID I DID SO DID HE RE;TEMP TRANSFER THE GARDAI ARE PROSECUTING HIM PRESUMAMBLY ON DIRECTIONS OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY THANKS FOR THE ADVICE I HAD ALL OF THIS COVERED.

djimi

Why is your friend up in court for fraud? If its to do with the insurance on the car then Im not sure that there is any advise any of can give you other than wait for the outcome of the court case.

Michael 09

devo11 wrote: »

WHATS WITH ALL THE FISHY STUFF I WAS DRIVING MY OLD B.M.W WHICH I LOVED BUT WAS TIME FOR A CHANGE I WAS AWAY IN LIMERICK FOR THE WEEKEND IT WAS MEANT TO BE ME LAST SPIN IN IT BEFORE SELLING IT.EXPLAIN FISHY MY FRIEND SO WHAT HE MAKES A CLAIM FOR 15.5.K AND WHAT HE GIVES ME HALF THATS 7.5K BUT IVE STILL TO PAY 15.5.K PLUS INTEREST BACK TO THE BANK SO WHATS FISHY NOW

Firstly, calm down.

Secondly, if I just got a new car and someone needed a lend of a car, I would not be giving them my 3 day old car. Do you mind me asking what type of car was it?

Thirdly, if the car was stolen and you own the car then why is your friend not giving you the full compensation. The idea of compensation is "to put the owner back in the position they were in prior to the incident". So that 15.5k compensation was intended to buy you a new car. Instead your mate, who does not own the car, is pocketing 7.5k from this whole thing.

I'm starting to see why he's being done for fraud.

MagicSean

This is my take. Your friend was covered under 3rd party for driving. So if he had crashed the car you would be out of cash. However he did not crash the car. The car was stolen and burnt out. So it should be covered under your comprehensive policy. Your friend was not in posession of the vehicle when it was stolen and set on fire. He had been removed from it. If this was the situation I would be consulting a solicitor to examine you insurance policy. This is why policies only provide third party cover for other vehicles because fire and theft is still covered under the owners policy.

However if your friend did crash the car and tried to cover it up by claiming he was robbed then you should bring a criminal prosecution against him for criminal damage but I still think you should be covered under your comprehensive policy as you did not give him permisssion to torch your car.

EDIT: OK never mind. Just reread your first post and you weren't insured on the car. Unfortunately there is no cover for you so. Try and find out more about your friends case. It sounds like he crashed the car and faked the theft to get money out of his insurance. If this is true you should try get him prosecuted for criminal damage to your vehicle. Definitely contact the garda involved in his case because they may not know the vehicle is yours.

langdang

Michael 09 wrote: »

Thirdly, if the car was stolen and you own the car then why is your friend not giving you the full compensation. The idea of compensation is "to put the owner back in the position they were in prior to the incident". So that 15.5k compensation was intended to buy you a new car. Instead your mate, who does not own the car, is pocketing 7.5k from this whole thing.

I'm starting to see why he's being done for fraud.

THATS NOT IT AT ALL DID YOU NOT READ HIS POST READ HIS POST YOU GRAMMAR NAZI IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE WITHOUT PUNCTUATION